This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner satisfied only one of the required three evidentiary criteria (judging), and the AAO withdrew SCOPS' finding on the leading role criterion, leaving him one criterion short of the minimum threshold.
2 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, a management analyst specializing in corporate governance for AgTech startups, sought EB-1A classification but was denied by SCOPS and again on appeal. The AAO confirmed only one criterion was met (judging), reversed SCOPS' favorable finding on the leading role criterion due to insufficient evidence of the companies' distinguished reputations, and found the membership and high salary criteria unmet. Because the petitioner could not reach the required three criteria, the AAO reserved analysis on two remaining criteria and dismissed the appeal without conducting a final merits determination. The case illustrates the importance of documenting organizational prestige and providing truly comparable compensation data.
What worked: The petitioner successfully established the judging criterion by demonstrating participation in evaluating others' work in the field.
What failed: 1. Membership criterion failed because IBGC bylaws did not show outstanding achievements were required of members or that experts judged them. 2. High salary criterion failed because the petitioner's non-salary remuneration (profit participation, advisory fees) was compared only to conventional salary benchmarks, with no comparable data for similarly structured compensation. 3. Leading role criterion was reversed on appeal because the petitioner did not establish the distinguished reputation of the AgTech startups or the industry coalition he served.
Takeaway: Petitioners with non-traditional income structures must submit comparative remuneration data that matches their actual compensation model, not generic salary surveys. For the leading role criterion, robust third-party evidence of an organization's funding scale, market position, or media recognition relative to industry peers is essential — especially for startups.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-1A criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- The petitioner successfully established the judging criterion by demonstrating participation in evaluating others' work in the field.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- Membership criterion failed because IBGC bylaws did not show outstanding achievements were required of members or that experts judged them
- High salary criterion failed because the petitioner's non-salary remuneration (profit participation, advisory fees) was compared only to conventional salary benchmarks, with no comparable data for similarly structured compensation
- Leading role criterion was reversed on appeal because the petitioner did not establish the distinguished reputation of the AgTech startups or the industry coalition he served.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards
Not metWaived by petitioner on appeal
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Not metIBGC membership did not require outstanding achievements judged by recognized national or international experts
Published material about the person
Not metAnalysis reserved; even if met, petitioner still could not reach three criteria
Judging the work of others
MetBoth SCOPS and AAO agreed this criterion was met
Original contributions of major significance
Not metAnalysis reserved; even if met, petitioner still could not reach three criteria
Authorship of scholarly articles
Not metWaived by petitioner on appeal
Display of work at artistic exhibitions or showcases
Not metWaived by petitioner on appeal
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
Reversed in their favorAAO reversed SCOPS' favorable finding; petitioner failed to establish distinguished reputation of AgTech startups and coalition
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
Not metPetitioner's non-salary income could not be compared to salary benchmark data; no comparable remuneration data submitted
Commercial successes in the performing arts
Not metWaived by petitioner on appeal
Completed
I-140 filed
Management analyst and corporate governance advisor specializing in agricultural technology startups
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-04-30
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner satisfied only one of the required three evidentiary criteria (judging), and the AAO withdrew SCOPS' finding on the leading role criterion, leaving him one criterion short of the minimum threshold.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.